User blog:Void Samukai/Alaska class discussion post
Greetings, fellow Wikia users. Today, I want to discuss about the Alaska class battlecruisers. Now, I can hear you saying, "Umm, don't you mean large cruisers?" Well, I am about to give my opinions on this debate. I will talk about some of the things that people have commented on the Alaska class and what it should be called. So let's begin. What is a battlecruiser? To me, a battlecruiser is a ship that is much larger than comtempory cruisers, carries a main armament of at least 11 inch caliber and is faster than comtempory battleships. In this respect, the Alaska class fit the bill very well. More than twice the size of many comtempory cruisers, faster than all but the Iowa class and had 12 inch guns. This definition would also mean the Ibuki, Courageous, Dunkurque and most German WW1 battlecruisers were battlecruisers, and I agree. The Duestchland class is too small to fit the description and Blücher has smaller guns than needed, so both don't count as battlecruisers for me. Now let's go busting some reasons on why the Alaska class should not be battlecruisers They can't participate in the line of battle Okay, unless you are a German battlecruiser, why are you even in a line of battle. This role is for battleships, where their thick armour can protect them. Battlecruisers were never meant to really stand up against battleships, so this point is moot They carry too small a gun Of the reasons, this has the most merit, as battleships at the time were carrying guns exceeding 14 inchs. However, many warships of the period carried similar guns. The Dunkurque class carried only 13 inch guns, which is comparable to 12 inch guns. Many Russian dreadnoughts in service also had 12 inch guns, and most of all, the fr####n Scharnhorst class have 11 inch guns. That is a smaller gun than the Alaska's, yet everyone calls them at least a battlecruiser. So the argument is also moot. They are upsized cruisers, so not battlecruisers This is just ridiculous. This was what the first battlecruiser: the Invincibles, really were: hugh armoured cruisers, which were the biggest cruisers of the time. True, they might not have the same defencive measures that other battlecruisers have but hey, they chose to go that route. They don't have a torpedo defence so are not battlecruisers This point has me the most confused. So they didn't have a TD, so, that was the sacrifice they made to maintain the desired speed of a speed her size. In essence, the Alaska class and Scharnhorst class represent two ideas of battlecruisers, the former sacrificing defences, the other firepower. This is the same with British and German battlecruisers, so really, this point is moot as well. So after seeing this, I can say for me at least that the Alaska class are really battlecruisers in all but name. But now you might be arguing your trump card for this topic, and it's a good one: then that means that the HMS Hood would be a battleship, and we all saw what happened when see went to battle. Well.....that is for another time Please feel free to post your thought below and discuss what you think about this topic. By all means, prove me wrong, but give good reasons for this. -Khoi- Category:Blog posts Category:Blog posts